Who is popular today?

The London-based Privy Council has sent back a dispute between a transport contractor and the State over the detention of a dumper truck.
In a ruling reversing a Court of Appeal decision, the Privy Council ruled that the Attorney General may proceed with its defence of part of a claim filed by Edasco Ltd.
The British law lords held that the Appeal Court erred in striking out the State’s defence for a specific period and ordered the dispute to return to the High Court for the relevant issues to be considered and resolved.
Lords Reid, Lloyd-Jones, Sales, Stephens and Lady Rose presided over the State’s appeal.
The case revolved around the truck’s seizure on July 16, 2019, under section 26 of the State Lands Act, and its detention until September 15, 2021.
In 2022, High Court judge Carol Gobin struck out the AG’s defence, permitting Edasco Ltd to enter judgment against the State. The State appealed, and the Court of Appeal ruled that there were grounds to defend the claim for the period from July 16, 2019, to September 30, 2019. However, for the period September 30, 2019, to May 7, 2021, the Appeal Court struck out the AG’s defence, leading the State to appeal to the Privy Council.
In the ruling, Lords Lloyd-Jones and Stephens, who wrote the decision, found that there was an arguable justification for the detention between September 30, 2019, and May 7, 2021.
The judges held that the Court of Appeal for misinterpreted the Attorney General’s defence.
In its ruling, the Court of Appeal had held that the police's authority to detain the vehicle ceased once charges were laid in 2019. However, the Privy Council held that the Attorney General had plausibly pleaded a continued legal basis for the truck’s detention under forfeiture proceedings pending before a magistrate.
“Whatever view was formed as to who was in possession of the truck pending that determination, the Attorney General raised a plea which is capable of affording a complete defence to the claim and which therefore should not have been struck out.”
The law lords also held that section 27 of the State Lands Act (SLA) did not bar a civil claim in detinue, but said that where lawful forfeiture proceedings are underway, they can constitute a defence to such a claim.
They rejected arguments that the police no longer had authority once a complaint was lodged with the magistrate, stating the vehicle remained in police custody throughout and not under the court's possession.
The ruling reopens Edasco’s claim for damages for the period in dispute and will permit a judge to determine whether the State’s continued detention was legally justified.
The truck was seized as part of investigations into illegal quarrying on state land.
In 2020, Edasco initiated legal proceedings seeking the return of the truck and damages for its alleged unlawful detention. The Attorney General argued that the truck had been lawfully seized and that Edasco Ltd was required to pursue relief through the magistrates' court under section 27 of the SLA, rather than through the High Court.
At the High Court, Justice Gobin struck out the Attorney General’s defence, finding no lawful basis for the detention during any part of the two years. She held that the SLA’s power to detain only arises once charges are laid under the Act, which occurred on 30 September 2019. She also held that Edasco Ltd, which was not a defendant in the magistrates’ court, could not apply to the magistrate under section 27.
In its ruling, the Appeal Court held that Edasco’s claim in detinue could not arise before it had demanded the truck’s return on 26 July 2019, and that before 30 September 2019, the police had grounds to detain the truck based on reasonable suspicion.
However, it dismissed the appeal regarding the second and third periods of detention, finding that the police no longer had lawful custody after charges were laid and later dismissed, and that Edasco retained the right to sue in detinue. While Edasco Ltd accepted the Court of Appeal’s findings on the initial period, the Attorney General further appealed to the Privy Council.
In their ruling, the law lords acknowledged that the appeal raised important questions on the relationship between detinue proceedings for recovering property seized under section 26 of the SLA and proceedings under section 27 of the SLA, which allow the property owner to oppose forfeiture and sale before a magistrate. It was also noted that resolving these issues would mainly depend on interpreting sections 25 to 27 of the SLA.
Robert Strang represented the State at the Privy Council, while Tom Richards, KC, Gerald Ramdeen and Dayadai Harripaul represented Edasco.
The post Privy Council reinstates State’s defence in dispute with contractor appeared first on Trinidad and Tobago Newsday.